i

HAI, DAVAI: ANALYZING LANGUAGE USE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY IN YOUNG ADULTS LIVING IN THE SOUTH OF MOLDOVA

Rebecca Frances Ruck

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Studies

Chapel Hill 2013

Approved by:

Gareth Price

Robert Jenkins

Peter Sherwood

ii

© 2013 Rebecca Frances Ruck

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii

ABSTRACT

REBECCA FRANCES RUCK: Hai Davai: Analyzing Language Use and National Identity in Young Adults Living in the South of Moldova

(Under the direction of Gareth Price)

This paper examines the relationship between national identity, language, and education

in the first generation of college students to grow up in an independent Moldova. As

Moldovan elites struggled to establish a Moldovan national identity distinct from both

Russia and Romania, they passed the Language Law of 1989, which made Romanian the

official language of Moldova. The 1994 Constitution of Moldova further established that

minority language speakers in Moldova have the right to use their language and the right

to choose the language in which they are educated. To assess the influence of educational

institutions on Moldovan youth national identity formation, I surveyed undergraduate

students attending B.P. Hasdeu State University in Cahul, Moldova. Students. On a

broader scale, I explore how attending linguistically segregated educational institutions

and courses have contributed to youths’ struggle to form a Moldovan national identity.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PART  ONE  ..................................................................................................................................................................  1  

 

INTRODUCTION  .......................................................................................................................................................  1  RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................. 5 RATIONALE: ................................................................................................................................................. 5

 

PART  TWO  ..............................................................................................................................................................  10  LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 10

National Identity .................................................................................................................................... 10 Language ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Education .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Identity, Language, Education .............................................................................................................. 17

 

PART  THREE:  SURVEY  DESIGN  ........................................................................................................................  18  METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 18 PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................................................ 20

Table 1: Native Languages of Survey Participants ............................................................................... 20 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 2: Population by nationalities and localities, in territorial aspect ............................................. 21 Table 3: Population by sex, age group and area, in territorial aspect ................................................. 22

 

PART  FOUR:  DATA  ANALYSIS  ..........................................................................................................................  23  Table 4: What language(s) do you speak at home? .............................................................................. 25 Table 5: What language(s) do or did your parents and grandparents speak? ..................................... 26 Table 6: Language of News Broadcast Categorized by Language(s) Spoken at Home ....................... 30 Table 8: Primary Language of instruction at School ............................................................................ 32 Table 7: What Lyceum Did You Attend? ............................................................................................... 33 Table 9: Primary Language of Instruction at B.P. Hasdeu State University ........................................ 34 Table 10: Language of Social Interactions at the University ............................................................... 35 Table 11: Cultural Identities of B.P. Hasdeu State University Students ............................................... 39

 

CONCLUSION  ..........................................................................................................................................................  41  

 

APPENDIX  I:  MAP  OF  CAHUL  ............................................................................................................................  44

v

APPENDIX  II:  ONLINE  SURVEY  QUESTIONS  .................................................................................................  45  

 

APPENDIX  III:  MOLDOVAN  1994  CONSTITUTION  ON  LANGUAGE  .......................................................  48  

 

(CONSTITUŢIA  REPUBLICII  MOLDOVA,  1994)  .............................................................................................  48  

 

APPENDIX  IV:  IRB  FORM  OF  APPROVAL  ......................................................................................................  49  

 

REFERENCES  ..........................................................................................................................................................  51    

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1  

PART ONE INTRODUCTION

The relationship between language, nationalism, and identity has concerned

scholars since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989. In this study, I investigate these

issues using the country of Moldova as a case study. In Moldova, language has been

politicized to unite and divide language communities at both the national and regional

level. As Stephen D. Roper explains, “education and the language of instruction has been

a highly politicized issue in the country and education was used by Romanian and Soviet

leaders to form group identity as well as support the regime” (Roper, 2005, p. 503).

Moldova is a viable case study because minimal literature to date has specifically focused

on the country’s segregated educational institutions. Using survey data, field notes,

primary and secondary sources, I examine national identity, language, and education

from the constructivist perspective. I explore the impact of linguistically segregated

educational institutions on national identity formation in Moldovan youth.

Moldova has struggled to form a cohesive national identity since gaining its

independence from Russia in 1991. Situated between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova is

home to 3,656,843 people (CIA, 2013). Its diverse population consists of 78.2%

Romanian/Moldovan, 8.4% Ukrainian, 5.8% Russian, 4.4% Gagauz, 1.9% Bulgarian, and

1.3% other ethnicities. Though Moldova has been an independent nation for twenty-two

 

2  

years, its population remains economically and culturally linked to Romania and Russia.

Moldova, one of the poorest countries in Europe, joined the Commonwealth of

Independent States (CIS) on December 21, 1991 to bolster its economy and establish

diplomatic relations with its Eastern neighbors, notably Russia (Anonymous, 1995, p.

195). At the same time, Moldova has tried to strengthen ties with its Western neighbors,

notably Romania, by voicing its desire to join the European Union (EU) and participating

in the European Neighborhood Program (Schmidtke & Chira-Pascanut, 2011, p. 481).

Moldova’s transnational partnerships with both the CIS and the EU are motivated

by its desire to mitigate tension between Russian and Romanian speakers living within its

borders. 58.8 % of its population claim Moldovan as their mother tongue, 16.4%

Romanian, 16.0% Russian, 3.8% Ukrainian, 3.1% Gagauz, and 1.1% Bulgarian. Russian

serves as a lingua franca for its linguistic minorities. “Every second Ukrainian, every

third Bulgarian and every fourth Gagauz uses, as a rule, Russian” (United Nations, 2010,

p. 6). During the Soviet period from 1940-1991, Moldovan civil society fully integrated

into the Soviet Union with courses and business conducted in Russian. To develop a

Moldovan linguistic identity separate from Romanian, the Soviets banned Romanian

literature and rewrote Romanian using the Cyrillic alphabet (Batalden, 1997, p. 66). By

russifying Moldova’s population, the Soviets unified Moldova’s various ethnic groups

under one spoken language.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1985 glasnost policy called for increased public

participation in political decision-making in Moldova, and other Soviet republics.

Moldovan intellectuals began to rally for increased independence from the Soviet Union

delineated by the integration of Romanian language in public institutions. In 1989, the

 

3  

parliament of the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic passed a language law that made

Moldovan (Romanian) the official language and replaced the Cyrillic alphabet with the

Latin alphabet (Quigley, 1994, p. 78). Citizens living in Soviet-controlled Moldova

learned to associate Russian language with nation-state, so policymakers saw the

language shift to Moldovan as the first step in establishing their newly independent

nation. However, since most of civil society used Russian as its official language and as a

language of international communication, Moldovan legislators understood the language

shift would be a gradual process. While making Moldovan the official state language was

an immediate action that satisfied the majority of Romanian language speakers,

particularly Romanian nationalists, within its borders, it left minority language speakers,

including Russians, Bulgarians, and Ukrainians concerned about their linguistic rights in

independent Moldova.

Despite the language law legislation, it is clear that Moldova’s population remains

divided on a micro level by Russian and Romanian language. The 1994 Moldovan

Constitution guarantees minority language speakers the right to be educated in their

mother tongue (see Appendix III). In multilingual communities, Moldovan parents

choose the language of instruction for their children. A child sent to a primary and

secondary school with Romanian as the language of instruction will attend classes with

other Romanian-speaking students and will have minimal exposure to students outside of

the Romanian language community. Gathered data suggests that language segregation is

also prevalent at the university level.

Institutionalized linguistic segregation of Russian and Romanian speakers in

Moldova’s education institutions is a factor that has contributed to Moldovan youths’

 

4  

struggle to develop a unified Moldovan national identity. Examining Cahul, one of

Moldova’s multilingual communities, provides insight on Moldova’s overall difficulty in

developing a national identity separate from Russia and Romania. Cahul is located in

southwestern Moldova along the river Prut. It is approximately fifteen miles from

Romania and culturally identifies itself as a historical part of Romania before Soviet rule.

Cahul is home to B.P. Hasdeu State University, the largest university in the south

of Moldova, which instructs students in both Romanian and Russian. When applying to

the university, students either apply for admission into the Russian or Romanian

programs of instruction. Admitted students receive instruction in Romanian or Russian

throughout their four years at the university and attend classes with students who share

the same mother tongue.

For the purposes of this research study, I am particularly interested in national

identity formation of students attending B.P. Hasdeu State University who are 18-22

years old. This generation is the first to relate to Moldova as an independent entity

separate from Romanian and Russian control. However, despite this fact, Russian and

Romanian speakers in Moldova struggle to unify under the idea of a Moldovan nation. To

gauge factors contributing to Cahul and Moldova’s struggle to form a cohesive national

identity, I will discuss the concepts of nation, identity and language in a Moldovan

framework.

Using data from my research, I examine how Cahul’s educational institutions

have reinforced linguistic ties to both Russia and Romania. To help understand national

identity formation in Moldova, I will take into account the historical pattern of foreign

 

5  

occupation by both Russian and Romanian regimes. I will further discuss how the

segregation of educational institutions and their curriculums guide identity formation in

Cahul.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The questions of this study are as follows:

1. How has language-segregated education from kindergarten through doctoral

studies affected identity formation in young adults aged 18-22 living in Cahul,

Moldova?

2. Why do young adults living in Cahul readily identify with the languages they

speak rather than their geographical location?

RATIONALE:

Moldova has witnessed a historical pattern of foreign occupation. The Ottoman

Empire controlled Moldova from 1538-1812, the Russian Empire ruled Moldova

following the Russo-Turkish War in 1812, and Romania united with Moldova from 1918-

1940 (King, 2000, pp. 16, 18). In 1924, the Soviet Union established the Moldovian

Autonomous Oblast in the territory east of the Nistru River bordering Ukraine. The

Soviets then created the Moldovian Socialist Republic that existed from 1940-

1991(Studies in Moldovan  : the history, culture, language and contemporary politics of

the people of Moldova, 1996, p. 53). Identity formation in Moldova has unquestionably

been shaped by the language, religion, and ideologies of its historical occupiers.

 

6  

Much scholarship has focused on identity formation, language, and education

reform in post-Soviet Moldova. In The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of

Culture, Charles King uses archival data, literature, and media sources to detail the failed

Soviet attempt to create a Moldovan nation characterized by a unique culture and

language. He asserts that national identity is malleable and can change through education,

cultural policy, and state intervention (King, 2000, p. 1). When Moldova gained its

independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, its priority was to reform its educational

institutions. At universities and professional schools, almost all of the instruction was

conducted in Russian so that graduates would be viable candidates for state employment

and eligible for international business opportunities. According to Chin and Roper,

“during this period, 10% of Kindergarteners were educated using the Romanian

language. For example, in 1989, 40.9 % of students studied in Russian while

59.1% of students studied in their own language. By 1992-1993, 71% of

secondary schools were taught in Romanian language” (Chinn & Roper, 1995, p.

299).

Moldovan legislators sought to transform loyalties from the former Soviet Union

to the Moldovan state. The passage of the language law called for the closure of

institutions with Russian as the primary language of instruction, but adherence to and

acceptance of the new language law varied regionally. Transnistria, Moldova’s

breakaway region, asserted that Moldova’s new language laws threatened their livelihood

and caused them to question their survival in post-Soviet Moldova. After refusing to

accept the Language Law of 1989, Transnistria adopted three official languages, Russian,

Moldovan (in the Cyrillic alphabet), and Ukrainian at the urging of its emerging leader,

 

7  

Igor Smirnov (Aneta Pavlenko, 2009, p. 286). In January 1990, 96% of the population

voted for the separation of Transnistria in a referendum (Chinn & Roper, 1995, p. 309).

In 1991, Transnistria declared its independence from Moldova. However, Moldova, and

every country except Russia, refuses to recognize the state of Transnistria.

The Language Law of August 31, 1989, was strongly supported by the Popular

Front, a pan-Romanian political party that advocated for the sole use of Romanian

language in Moldova. The effect that the language law had on education demonstrates

that the government’s priority was to decrease the amount of Russian spoken in Moldova.

“In 1990 there were 22,500 college students who did their course work in

Romanian language and 25,700 who studied in Russian; by 1995 those numbers

had become 24,400 versus 5,600. At universities 24,600 studied in Romanian in

1990 and 29,900 in Russian; those numbers were 36,700 and 15,700 by 1995”

(National integration and violent conflict in post-Soviet societies  : the cases of

Estonia and Moldova, 2002, p. 172).

The state’s efforts to mold the identity of the first group to be raised in an

independent Moldova are evident in its making Romanian the national language of

Moldova and instituting the instruction of Moldovan history in its educational institutions

(Worden, 2011). From 1997 until the early 2000s, Moldovan students in primary schools

were taught history from a Romanianist perspective. According to King, Romanianism

“engineered the rebirth of Romanian culture and wanted to eradicate the notion of an

independent Moldovan cultural identity” (King, 2000, p. 151).

 

8  

It was not until 2006, after the education reform, that students began learning

history from the Moldovanist perspective that presupposes Moldovans are “ethnically,

culturally, and linguistically distinct from Romanians” (Worden, 2011, p. 235). Until

their high school years, youth aged 18-22 were taught to view themselves as extensions

of Romanian culture. In high school, these youth were then told to view themselves as

Moldovan citizens and members of a nation distinct from Romania. As the recipients of

contradictory narratives of their national history, Moldovan youth have had difficulty

forming their own national identities.

Both the Moldovanist and Romanianist versions of history emphasize that

Moldova’s borders have been redrawn many times. Rather than identifying themselves as

members of an independent Moldova delineated by its contested versions of history,

youth tend to identify with their mother tongue. Rogers Brubaker explains that during the

Soviet period, “ethnocultural nationality was more fundamental than territorial

nationhood” (Brubaker, 1994, p. 71). Roger Suny further says that “the practice of fixing

nationality in each citizen’s internal passport on the basis of parentage rendered an

inherently liquid identity into a solid commitment to a single ethnocultural group” (Suny,

2001, p. 867). Moldova’s youth identify themselves by their spoken languages because

they are able to view themselves as a larger community in which speakers of the same

language are members.

Since 1994, Moldovan elites have promoted a Moldovan national identity distinct

from Russia and Romania. Though Romanian became the national language in 1991, the

majority of educational institutions remain segregated. Russian speakers attend separate

schools than Romanian speakers from preschool through higher institutions of education.

 

9  

This trend continues through university education where students attend courses with

students who share their same mother tongue. Students remain in these language-

segregated groups during their four years at the university.

While there has been significant research into Moldovan identity (King, 2000),

the 2006 education reform in Moldova (Worden, 2011), and ethnocultural identities

(Brubaker, 2004), there has not been significant research that examines how language-

segregated education has affected identity formation in Moldovan youth. Language-

segregated education is not unique to Moldova and is characteristic of other republics

such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Knowledge gained from the survey conducted in

Cahul provides a wide array of audiences a representative view into post-Soviet identity

formation in newly formed states.

 

10  

PART TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, I review pertinent literature on national identity, language, and

education. These areas are especially relevant to my research because it provides a

necessary context to situate youth identity formation.

NATIONAL IDENTITY To gauge the complexity of national identity formation in Moldova, it is

necessary to understand the connection between identity and nation. The idea of the

nation remains central to most attempts to define legitimate political communities

(Brubaker, 1994). “A nation is a community of sentiment that would adequately manifest

itself in a state of its own; hence, a nation is a community which normally tends to

produce a state of its own”(Weber, Gerth, & Mills,1991, p. 176).

In the study of nations, two theories have emerged: primordialist and

constructivist/instrumentalist paradigms. Primordial theorists, notably Edward Shils,

believe that nations are cultural traditions that can be explained by history. Primordialists

believe that nations are ancient and immutable. Constructivist theorists such as Eric

Hobsbawm and Ernest Gellner, conceive that nations are invented and the product of

deliberate work or activity. Accordingly, Hobsbawm defines the nation as being "a social

 

11

entity only insofar as it relates to a certain kind of modern territorial state, the 'nation-

state'"1 (Hobsbawm, 1992, p. 9,10).

Like Hobsbawm, Gellner views nations as constructed. “Nationalism is not the

awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist”

(Gellner, 1983, p. 48). Gellner emphasizes that the emergence of the modern nation-state

could not have been possible without industrialization. Similarly, Benedict Anderson

believes that the modern nation-state could not have emerged without significant

innovations in European society. Unlike Gellner, however, Anderson explains that the

printing press enabled the widespread dissemination of ideas across a large geographical

territory. According to Anderson, a common language, which spread with the advent of

the printing press, allowed people to view themselves as members of an imagined

community. As members of these imagined communities, citizens speaking the same

language were able to feel a common sense of unity with people they had never met.

Anderson notes this fraternal connection with communities “makes it possible over the

past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die

for such limited imaginings” (Anderson, 2006, p. 7).

The emergence of nations, whether real or imagined, unites populations under

shared similarities and ideologies. David Block describes national identity as a “sense of

a shared history, descent, belief systems, practices, languages and religion associated

                                                                                                                         

1 A nation-state is a particular type of state, characteristic of post-medieval and modern times, in which a government has sovereign power within a defined territorial area, and the mass of the population are citizens who know themselves to be part of a single nation (Darvill, 2012).

 

12

with a nation state” (Block, 2008, p. 37). Similarly, Anthony D. Smith views national

identity as a shared sentiment of belonging to a nation.

The following features are characteristic of a national identity (Smith, 1991, p. 14)

1. a historic territory or homeland 2. common myths and historical memories 3. a common, mass public culture 4. common legal rights and duties for all members

LANGUAGE Language is a vital component of national identity; it provides members of a

nation a medium to express cultural heritage, memory, and kinship with one another

(Fishman, 2001, Chapter 6). Gellner explains that “political and national unit should be

congruent, and the national unit is most commonly defined in terms of language”

(Gellner, 1983, p. 1) In fact, different nomadic groups inhabiting the same territory rarely

spoke the same language unless their daily lives necessitated it and were not classified as

a single political group. Pierre Bourdieu viewed language, speaking, and writing as forms

of symbolic capital in which groups in linguistic markets legitimate. For Bordieu,

“language legitimation took place through the institutions of the state and especially

through education” (Martin-Jones, Blackledge, & Creese, 2012, p. 6).

Before the French Revolution, explains William Safran, the French exclusively

used a common language for religious instruction. Bibles were translated into different

language to spread religious not nationalist ideas (Safran, 2008, p. 178). Early language

theorists, notably Johann Gottfried Herder, treated national identity “as innate, biological,

and given by some higher power” (Ciscel, 2007, p. 57). Thought, according to Herder,

was only possible if one has a language and the ability to express their thoughts

 

13

linguistically (Herder, 2002, p. xv). He established that “a nation cannot exist without its

language” (Herder, 1969, p. 175). In 1807, Johann Gottlieb Fichte discussed German

language as a link with an ancestral past characterized by the same spoken language

(Calhoun, 1993, p. 221). Herder and Fichte established a precedent of associating

language with identity.

Unlike Romantic theorists, such as Herder and Fichte, constructivist theorists

posit language as a part of a socially constructed national identity. As Safran states, “the

sentiment of belonging to an ethnonational community is not necessarily connected with

a language, although a specific language may be considered part of the cultural heritage

of that community” (Fishman, 2001, p. 91). Following World War I, 1914-1918, and

World War II, 1939-1945, the borders of Europe were redrawn to distribute territory to

the wars’ victors. The drawing and redrawing of national borders produced multilingual

populations living under the control of one state. In the Soviet Union, “Leninist and

Stalinist approaches to language issues equated language and nation and marked by a

fetishized paranoia about the potential of language for resistance” (Ciscel, 2007, p. 63).

Stalin declared that a

“national community is inconceivable without a common language…there is no

nation which at one and the same time speaks several languages” (Lenin & Lorimer,

2002, p. 195).

In this way, language knowledge became linked to national loyalty in the Soviet

Union.

 

14

“The communities of communication provided by national education systems

allowed people to circulate easily within their own community” (Wright, 2000, p. 21).

Jurgen Habermas necessitated that a group’s ability to communicate with one another in

the same language is important for formation of national identity.

“When parents educate their children, when living generations appropriate the

knowledge handed down by their predecessors, when individuals cooperate, i.e.

get on with each other without a costly use of force, they must act

communicatively. There are elementary social functions which can only be

satisfied by means of communicative action” (Habermas, 1994, p. 111).

Aneta Pavlenko’s, “Multilingualism in Post-Soviet Countries: Language Revival,

Language Removal, and Sociolinguistic Theory,” describes how Soviet language policy

tried to mold a pro-Soviet Moldovan identity. In the Soviet Union, Pavlenko explains that

“the Soviets drew and redrew borders, dissolved ethnic groups (e.g. Sarts), created new

ethnicities and languages (e.g. Moldavians/Moldavian), reinforced boundaries between

fluid identity categories and dialects (e.g. Uzbek/Tajik), formed new national territories

(e.g. Turkmenistan), and eventually firmly embedded national categories into the very

fabric of Soviet life (Aneta Pavlenko, 2009, p. 280)”.

Whereas Pavlenko provides scholarship on multilingualism in post-Soviet

countries, Bhavna Davé asserts that state language is kept visible in ceremonial settings

and is used as a symbol to cement in-group solidarity to keep challenges out of the public

area. Slogans proclaiming that, “a nation cannot exist without its language,”(Dave, 2004)

 

15

reflected a Herderian connection between language and nation and were popularized to

rally target ethnic groups to support the nation-building process.

EDUCATION Education is frequently used as a nation-building tool to mold the national

identities, to reinforce knowledge of their nation’s history, and to increase proficiency in

the state’s language. Bourdieu asserts that, “the recognition of the legitimacy of the

official language is neither imposed nor conscious…it takes place through suggestions

which are inscribed in the things, situations, and practices of everyday life” (Bourdieu &

Thompson, 1991, p. 51).

In 1805, Napoleon Bonaparte declared

“of all political questions, that [of education] is perhaps the most important. There

cannot be a firmly established political state unless there is a teaching body with

definitely-recognized principles. If the child is not taught from infancy that he

ought to be a republican or a monarchist, a Catholic or a free-thinker, the state

will not constitute a nation; it will rest on uncertain and shifting foundations; and

it will be constantly exposed to disorder and change” (Reisner, 1922, p. 35).

It is thus possible to trace the emergence of a nation state with the emergence of an

education system that reinforces loyalty to one’s nation state.

Sue Wright explains that “nation builders saw that national education and national

service would create a single community of communication in addition to their primary

purposes of training the workforce and the military” (Wright, 2004, p. 67). Accordingly

national language becomes rooted in a society when national laws dictate it, and when

 

16

education systems, armies, and bureaucracies implement it (Wright, 2004, p. 43). Thus,

“state education in the state language is one of the most powerful means of unifying a

linguistically diverse population” (Wright, 2000, p. 20).

Ernest Gellner similarly links education to the development of a national identity.

“Although the development of nationalism has been linked to many tools of the modern

state, the clearest mechanism for the transmission of a shared national identity and a

history is education” (Darden & Grzymala-Busse, 2006, p. 90) Gellner argues that

modern nations are cultivated by states.

“In general, each state presides over, maintains and is identified with, one kind of

culture, one style of communication, which prevails within its borders and is

dependent for its perpetuation on a centralised educational system supervised by

and often actually run by the state in question, which monopolizes legitimate

culture almost as much as it does legitimate violence, and perhaps more so”

(Gellner, 2006, p. 134).

There are different state institutions that can be used to shape national identity in a

multiethnic state. One of the most important and far reaching is a state’s education

system. Education can shape the attitude of an entire generation (Christou, 2006).

Education involves teaching students in an official language, providing them with

textbooks approved by the ruling administration, and teaching them a curriculum

established and regulated by the state.

 

17

IDENTITY, LANGUAGE, EDUCATION

While significant scholarship has examined identity, language, and education,

there is a lack of published research that analyzes how segregated educational institutions

impact identity formation in Moldova. Charles King, perhaps the most significant

contributor to the field of Moldovan studies, states that since independence, Moldovans

have struggled to form a cohesive Moldovan identity. In the “Mock Reform of History

Education in Moldova,” Elizabeth Worden discusses the reform of history to teach

history from a Moldovanist perspective (Worden, 2011). While she addresses how

education plays a vital role in identity formation in Moldovan youth, her research does

not examine the impact of segregated education. Hobsbawm, Gellner, and Anderson

deem that nations are a modern construct, whether imagined or real. My research builds

upon their constructivist view of nationalism and national identity formation. In

particular, it uses Anderson’s belief that nations are imagined communities. Moldovan

youth residing in Cahul tend to identify with the languages they speak because they are

able to imagine themselves as a part of a larger community comprised of speakers of the

same mother tongue.

 

18

PART THREE: SURVEY DESIGN

METHODOLOGY During my tenure as a Fulbright scholar in Moldova from 2010-2011, I worked as

an English language instructor at B.P. Hasdeu State University. The students I taught

were separated into Russian and Romanian groups with about 10-15 students in each

group. The combination of my interactions with students at the university and my

observations of language politics in Cahul led me to question how language segregation

in Moldova’s educational institutions has effected identity formation in post-Soviet

Moldova.

The first generation of college students to grow up in an independent Moldova

has struggled to form a unified national identity. Instead of identifying as members of the

Moldovan nation, Moldovan youth tend to form ethno-cultural identities delineated by

their mother tongue. In the classroom environment, there is little interaction between

Russian speaking and Romanian speaking groups. Students explained that their social

groups outside of the university formed around sharing a common language and they

often chose to spend their time with their group mates from the university.

The research data includes data from 36 Moldovan university students, contracted

 

19

through a snowball sample3. I recruited my former students and asked them to share the

survey with their colleagues also attending B.P. Hasdeu State University. While using the

snowball sampling method does not guarantee a representative sample, it allowed me to

reach a larger audience. The survey was carried out in the winter of 2012 using the

Qualtrics Research Suite (see Appendix II). All research was reviewed and approved by

the University of North Carolina’s Institutional Review Board. Sampling was limited to the

Cahul raion in Moldova. Survey participants took the survey in Russian, Romanian, or

English. 28 percent of respondents completed the survey in English, 18 percent completed

it in Romanian, and 54 percent completed the survey in Russian.

Prospective participants received a recruitment email, which gave them the option

of clicking on a link to take an anonymous online survey. Students were then prompted to

complete the online survey in English, Russian, or Romanian. After clicking the survey

link, students were presented with an online consent form. The survey took participants

between 15-20 minutes. Students were asked questions focused on language and identity in

Moldova. All participants decided where and when they took the survey and had the option

to discontinue the survey at any time. Survey responses were collected using the Qualtrics

platform. At no point in the survey process was the identity of survey participants revealed.

                                                                                                                         

3 In snowball sampling, the researcher collects data on the few members of the target population he or she can locate, then asks those individuals to provide the information needed to locate other members of that population who they happen to know (Babbie, 2013, p. 191)  

 

20

PARTICIPANTS

The participants in the study are university students chosen from B.P. Hasdeu State

University in Cahul, Moldova. B.P. Hasdeu State University, a state-funded university

established in 1991, offers degree programs in philology, history, economics, mathematics,

and public administration (“Cahul State University Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu,” 2013). The

survey pool, made up of 36 students, consisted of both male and female students ranging in

age from 18 to 22 years old. The survey pool comprised of 61.1% native Russian speakers,

33.1% native Romanian speakers and 5.6% native Gagauz speakers.

TABLE 1: NATIVE LANGUAGES OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS  

Native Language Number of Participants Percentage of Survey Pool

Russian 22 61.1%

Romanian 12 33.3%

Gagauz 2 5.6%

Total Participants 36

The participants were recruited from B.P. Hasdeu State University where I taught

English grammar, conversation, and culture to during my tenure as Fulbright English

Teaching Assistantship in Moldova. Children under the age of 18 were not included.

 

21

SCOPE OF THE STUDY  

As the largest town south of Chisinau, Cahul is home to a myriad of ethnic groups

(see table 2 below). To accommodate both its Russian and Romanian speaking

populations, B.P. Hasdeu State University provides course instruction in both languages.

Students attend classes with speakers of their same mother tongue. As of 2011, there are

119,231 people living in Cahul and its surrounding villages (raion) (National Bureau of

Statistics of the Republic of Moldova, 2011). There are approximately 11,539 young adults

aged 18-22 in the Cahul raion (Biroul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii Moldova, 2012).

From 2011-2012, B.P. Hasdeu State University enrolled 2,146 students (“Cahul State

University Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu,” 2013). This research is limited to students 18-22

who attend B.P. Hasdeu State University. Andrei Popa, rector of the university, explains,

“our students are natives of the southern districts of Moldova. Most of them are

representatives from socially vulnerable families” (Bear, Valentina, 2012).

TABLE 2: POPULATION BY NATIONALITIES AND LOCALITIES, IN TERRITORIAL ASPECT (National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova, 2011)

Ethnic Group Number residing in Cahul

Moldovans 91001

Ukrainians 7842

Russians 7702

Gauauzs 3665

Bulgarians 5816

Romanians 2095

Jews 40

 

22

Poles 29

Gypsies 238

Others 803

Total Population: 119231

TABLE 3: POPULATION BY SEX, AGE GROUP AND AREA, IN TERRITORIAL ASPECT (National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova, 2011)

Age Number residing in Cahul Percent of Population 15 - 19 12829 10.76 20-24 10752 9.02

                       

 

 

23

PART FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS

As both a researcher and teacher living in Cahul, I witnessed the day-to-day lives of

students inside and outside of class. While Cahul is the largest town south of Chisinau, its

citizens often refer to Cahul as a large village with few secrets and many traditions.

Outside of class, I often saw students at the marketplace, meeting their friends in a local

café, or in my neighborhood. Groups formed around common language at the university

often formed the basis of social groups and extracurricular activities. Pictures posted on

social networking sites, notably Odnoklassniki, the Moldovan equivalent of Facebook,

showed that students often chose to spend their time with peers who shared the same

mother tongue.

Students in both Russian and Romanian groups stressed a high level of familial

involvement in their lives. Specifically, students stated that they usually spent the

weekends with their family helping out with the household chores. Despite the fact that

over half of my students had one or more parents working abroad, students expressed

strong connection to their immediate and extended family members. As one student

detailed, it is common for several generations of a family speaking the same language to

live in the same house or apartment.

Questions of the online survey were designed to investigate sources of influence in

youth national identity formation in Moldovans living in Cahul, Moldova (reference

 

24

Appendix II). In particular, questions were structured to gauge the amount of personal and

educational influence on national identity formation. To avoid isolating a particular

language speaking community, questions were open ended and accommodated Moldova’s

minority and majority language speakers. The majority of survey respondents, regardless

of their mother tongue, framed their identities in terms of the languages they spoke. In fact,

all survey respondents reported being able to speak at least two languages fluently.

Data suggests that both educational and personal domains influence language use

and attitudes of Moldovan youth. For the purposes of this study, the working definitions of

personal and educational domain are as follows:

1. educational domain: where the person is engaged in organized learning,

especially (but not necessarily) within an educational institution

2. personal domain: where the person concerned lives as a private individual

centered on home life with family and friends, engages in individual practices

such as reading for pleasure, keeping a personal diary, pursuing a special

interest or hobby, etc. (Council of Europe., 2009, p. 45)

In their survey responses, Moldovan youth report that educational domains, notably

segregated educational institutions, have reinforced their tendency to associate their

national identity with their mother tongue. Language spoken at home is reinforced by

Cahul’s educational institutions, which educate its Russian and Romanian speakers

separately. The separate but equal educational system has increased the likelihood of youth

identifying with their mother tongue. Categorizing my data according to the influence of

 

25

educational versus personal domains provides a cohesive view of factors involved in

identity formation of university students in Cahul.

Personal Domain

To gain a better understanding of the personal domains of survey respondents, I

asked students, “where is your family from in Moldova? If your family is from another

country, please list which country”. 20% of respondents said they were from Cahul, 60%

from the south of Moldova, 7% from Moldova, 8% from Gagauzia, and 5% from Bulgaria.

Some respondents chose to draw their family lineage back several generations while others

listed the towns in which they grew up. Hometowns, the geographical centers of home life,

constitute an integral part of the personal domain.

Several students reported having multiple generations living in their household.

35% of my students reported being raised by their grandparents when their parents worked

abroad to financially support the family. Since Cahul is a multilingual town, it was

important for me to establish which language(s) students were exposed to while at home.

To understand the linguistic landscape of my survey respondents, I asked, “what

language(s) do you speak at home?”

TABLE 4: WHAT LANGUAGE(S) DO YOU SPEAK AT HOME?

Language(s) Spoken at Home

Respondents who speak language(s) at home

Russian 17 Romanian 9 Moldovan 1 Bulgarian 1

 

26

Russian and Romanian

2

Russian and Gagauz

1

55% of survey respondents said they used Russian to communicate with their family

members living within their personal domain. 30% of respondents said they used

Romanian at home. Only 10% of respondents reported using more than one language at

home. To gauge whether most respondents only spoke one language at home because their

parents were monolingual or if it was the result of multilingual parents actively choosing

to maintain one preferred language, I next asked students the following questions: what

language(s) do or did your parents speak, and what language(s) do or did your

grandparents speak?

TABLE 5: WHAT LANGUAGE(S) DO OR DID YOUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS SPEAK?  

What language(s) do or did your parents speak?

Russian 7

Romanian 8

Russian, Romanian 3

Romanian, Russian, Turkish 1

Russian, Gagauz 3

Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Polish 1

Russian, Moldovan 2

Russian, Moldovan, Gagauz 1

Moldovan 1

 

27

Russian, Ukrainian Moldovan 1

Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian 1

Russian, Romanian, Azerbaijani 1

Gagauz 1

Table 5 above shows that the majority of respondent households are not

monolingual. Instead, the data suggests that while around half of parents and grandparents

are multilingual, families in Cahul often choose to maintain one dominant language in their

household. Two Romanian-speaking students stated that even though their parents have a

basic understanding of Russian, they choose not to speak it inside their homes. As one

student explains, “my mother is pure Russian, so she speaks only Russian. My father

understands Romanian, but he can't speak it”. Another student said that, “one grandmother

speaks Russian and Romanian, the other only speaks Russian so we usually communicate

using Russian.” A family choosing to communicate using the language that the majority of

its members speak is an example of language maintenance (Wright, 2004).

In addition to dictating the dominant language spoken inside the home, family

members also introduce their children to literature written in a preferred language. Students

explained that since there was not a children’s library in Cahul, the books their parents read

to them were usually purchased at the local bookstore. In asking students, “did your

parents read to you as a child” and “did your grandparents read to you as a child,” I wanted

to find out if parents and grandparents did in fact influence language attitudes of survey

respondents at an early age. 100% of respondents reported their parents reading to them.

62% of students said that their parents read to them in Russian, 36% in Romanian, and 2%

 

28

in both Romanian and Russian. Several students fondly remember reading the Russian

versions of Little Red Riding Hood (красная шапочка) and Sleeping Beauty (Спящая

красавица). Six respondents claimed reading poems and stories written in Romanian by

Ion Creanga and Mihai Eminescu, two of Moldova’s most celebrated writers. While the

question did not ask respondents about their national language, several Romanian-speaking

students mentioned that the Romanian books they read were written in the national

language of Moldova. One student remarked, “of course they were in Romanian because

this is the national language”.

Half of students surveyed said that their grandparents read to them as a child. 30%

of students were read to in Russian, 18% were read to in Romanian, and 2% were read to

in Russian and Polish. All students whose grandparents read to them in Romanian listed

“Punguta Cu Doi Bani,” as one of their favorite children’s book. 14% of students whose

grandparents read to them in Russian listed “Little Red Riding Hood” as their favorite

story.

Another sphere of linguistic influence in students’ personal domains is music.

Music preference is classified within the personal domain because it is an expression of

students’ interests. Persons of authority in the personal domain control both the dominant

language spoken in the household and exposure to literature in a dominant language.

Students themselves control music preference as well as choice to listen to music in one

language over another. In Cahul, students have access to music in several languages

including Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, Moldovan, Bulgarian, and Gagauz. Students

report that they most commonly listen to music on their computers and on their phones.

When surveying students about their music tastes, I asked, “are you more likely to listen to

 

29

Russian, Romanian, Moldovan, or other music?” 36.4% said they preferred listening to

Russian music, 24.5% to Romanian, 24.5% to other types of music, and 15% to both

Russian and Romanian. None of the respondents said that they preferred to listen to

Moldovan music. Interestingly, students said that popular radio stations played both

Russian and Romanian music on the same channel. Having both languages played on the

same channel is unique in Moldova because stations broadcast from Moscow and

Bucharest play only Russian and Romanian songs, respectively.

Along with music choice, the news channel and language students choose to watch

is considered to be a sphere of influence in the personal domain. In the context of my

research, the language of news broadcasts fell under the personal domain because students

expressed that they usually watched the news with their families while eating dinner. The

tradition of watching the news and the tendency for one family to watch the news in the

dominant language spoken in the house thus qualified news channel preferences to be

categorized under the personal rather than public domain. The government of Moldova

says that in populations where Romanian is not the spoken majority, twenty percent of

news must be broadcast in Romanian. However, viewers are not required to watch

language in the official language of the state. In 2011, there were 207 newspapers, 57

television stations, and 56 radio stations regularly broadcast in Moldova (Doina Costin,

2011).

I asked students “on what channel do you watch the news? Please list the channel

of the news and if you use subtitles.” 47.2% of respondents said they watched the news in

Russian, 31.8% in Romanian, 9% in both Russian and Romanian, 3% in Russian,

Ukrainian, and Romanian, 3% in Russian and Moldovan, 2% in Romanian and English,

 

30

and 4% watch the news on the internet. 30% of students who watched the news in Russian

used subtitles, with 24% of subtitles in Romanian and 6% in Russian. None of the students

who watched the news in Romanian used subtitles.

The data in Table 6 below shows that the majority of students watch the news in

their mother tongue and in the majority language spoken at home. 83% of Russian

speakers watch the news in Russian, 81% of Romanian speakers watch the news in

Romanian. As one student describes, “I usually watch news on Romanian channel because

the language is more appropriate to me.” While all respondents answered the questions,

several expressed discontent with the news outlets in Moldova. One respondent stated that,

“I do not watch news on TV because they are all too pro-Russian, pro-Romanian, or too

Western; I do not believe that a liberal news channel exists.” Students who speak minority

languages at home, such as Bulgarian or Gagauz, watch the news in Russian. Data

therefore supports the notion that Russian continues to be the language of interethnic

communication in Cahul.

TABLE 6: LANGUAGE OF NEWS BROADCAST CATEGORIZED BY LANGUAGE(S) SPOKEN AT

HOME

Home Language Spoken

Russian Romanian

Russian, Romanian

Russian, Gagauz

Russian, Moldovan

Bulgarian

Moldovan

Romanian Russian

Language of News

Russian 14 (83%)

0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Romanian 0 9 (81%)

0 0 0 0 1 0

 

31

Educational Domain

The second half of the survey questioned students about language use, exposure,

and attitudes in educational domains. Pre-school institutions, schools, secondary schools,

specialized secondary schools, colleges and universities encompass Cahul’s educational

domain. There are 14 kindergartens, 3 primary schools, 6 lyceums, 2 professional schools,

2 colleges, and 2 universities (Nebunu, Arsene, & Maftei, 2011). In Cahul, parents choose

both the institution their children attend and the language of instruction. It is common, as

one of my students explained, for parents to send their children to a pre-school with

instruction in a language other than their mother tongue. A student who identifies as both

Gagauz and Russian said that, “Russian parents usually send their children to Romanian

pre-schools so they could learn the language better”. However, by the time of kindergarten,

or when children are six years old, parents send their children with instruction in their

mother tongue.

Russian, Romanian

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Russian, Moldovan

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

internet 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Romanian, English

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

I don’t watch TV

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

32

The majority of the students I taught were Cahul natives who attended schools in

Cahul and its surrounding villages before matriculating to the university. I asked the

students about language of instruction of schools they attended before starting university to

better understand their linguistic background. To look at how educational institutions

affected the formation of national identity of surveyed college students, I asked my

students, “what was the primary language of instruction at school?” 65% of students

attended Russian language classes, 33% attended Romanian classes, and 2% of students

attended classes taught in both Russian and Gagauz as the language of instruction (see

Table 8 below).

TABLE 8: PRIMARY LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AT SCHOOL

Next, I asked “what lyceum (high school) did you attend?” 61.3% of students

attended a Russian High School, 35.5% attended a Romanian High School, and 3.2%

attended a Medical School taught in both languages (see Table 7 below).

Number  of  Students  Enrolled  Russian   20  Romanian   10  Russian,  Gagauz   1  

0  5  10  15  20  25  

What  is  the  primary  language  of  instruction  at  school?    

 

33

TABLE 7: WHAT LYCEUM DID YOU ATTEND?  

At lyceum, 48.4% of students used texts written in Russian, 35.5% in Romanian, 9.7% in

both Russian and Romanian, 3.2% in Russian, Romanian, Gagauz, and English, and 3.2%

in Cyrillic Romanian. The majority of Romanian speakers stated that they studied from

Romanian texts. However one Romanian speaker said, “though our textbooks were written

in Romanian, some of the older books had texts written in Romanian with Russian letters.”

Two students reflected the discontent in the quality of textbooks available to Russian

speakers by stating, “textbooks were in Russian and badly translated from Romanian,” and

“a number were translated into Russian from Romanian, which aside from logical errors

made the material difficult to understand”.

When questioned about their language of instruction and textbooks used at the

university, students stated the materials available to them were higher quality and none of

the respondents complained about poorly translated materials. Table 9 below shows that

62.1% of students are taught in Russian and 37.9% of students are taught in Romanian.

Number  of  Students    Russian  High  School   19  Romanian  High  

School   11  

Medical  High  School   1  

0  5  10  15  20  

What  Lyceum  Did  You  Attend?  

 

34

TABLE 9: PRIMARY LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AT B.P. HASDEU STATE UNIVERSITY

What is the primary language of your instruction at the university?

Russian 18

Romanian 11

B.P. Hasdeu State University, like many universities in Moldova, caters to both

Romanian and Russian speakers. Each course of study has both a Russian and Romanian

department to teach separate, but similar classes to the Russian and Romanian groups

studying at the university. During my tenure as a Fulbright scholar, the courses I taught

were categorized under the English Department. Each day, I taught one lesson to first year

English majors whose mother tongue was Romanian and then another lesson to first year

English majors whose mother tongue was Russian. All courses at the university are

structured this way and there is minimal interaction between Russian and Romanian

speakers at the collegiate level.

In their survey responses, a few students discussed that teachers at the university

disliked having to teach courses in both Romanian and Russian. In fact, some teacher went

so far as to express negative attitudes towards students who did not share the teacher’s

same mother tongue. As one student asserted, “some Russophobes teach at the university

and expressed Romanian nationalist attitudes against Russian speakers living in Moldova”.

The majority of students I taught lived in on-campus dormitories during the week

and travelled to their home villages on the weekends. For the purposes of my research, the

 

35

educational domain also includes social interactions outside of class but still within the

limits of the university campus. Thus, I asked, “outside of class, do most of your friends

speak Russian or Romanian at the university?” Table 10 below shows that the majority of

students form their social networks around students who speak their same mother tongue.

26% of students stated that they did not have friends who spoke another language.

Interesting however, both Romanian and Russian speakers expressed willingness to use a

language other than their mother tongue to communicate with someone who did not know

their dominant language. 51.9% of Romanian speakers said they would use Russian to

communicate with someone who did not speak Romanian. 40.7% of Russian speakers said

they would use Romanian to communicate with non-Russian speakers.

TABLE 10: LANGUAGE OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY  

Language of Communication with Peers at University

Russian Romanian Romanian, Russian

Native Language(s)

Russian 13 0 1

Romanian 0 7 0

Russian, Romanian 0 0 1

Russian, Gagauz 1 0 0

Russian, Moldovan 1 0 0

Bulgarian 1 0 0

Moldovan 0 0 1

Romanian, Russian 0 1 0

 

36

Despite their willingness to communicate in another language, some speakers still

struggle to overcome the language gap. This is notably evident in when one respondent

vocalizes that, “I have some friends that speak Russian not Romanian but we understand

each other very well because they understand Romanian but they cannot speak it. For

them, Romanian is very difficult, especially the pronunciation.” In describing her

roommates who do not share a common language, one student explains, “I can speak

Russian, they in Moldovan and we understand each other”

When interacting with staff at the university, several students explain they’ve

experienced forms of language discrimination. 68% of surveyed students reported they

remembered a time when someone requested that they speak another language. Of the

students who remember being asked to speak another language in the educational domain,

50% speak Russian, 27.8% speak Romanian, 5.6% speak Russian and Gagauz, 5.6% speak

Russian and Moldovan, and 5.6% speak Moldovan. One Russian speaker recollected that,

“the university requests Russian speakers to do this all of the time. This is because it is a

Romanian university and teachers are Pro-Romanian here.” Another student voiced a

similar experience and said that, “Romanian language speakers are often outraged when I

speak to them in Russian.” At the university bus stop, one Russian-speaking student said

“an old woman at the bus stop told me to talk in a normal language.”

Students reported experiencing similar language discrimination in public places in

and around the university. 59.3% of Respondents use Russian in public places such as the

market, doctor’s office, and shops, 25.9% use Romanian, and 14.8% use both Romanian

and Russian. One student said, “I remember when I went to doctor's office and I tried to

explain my problem to him but he said to me: sorry, could you speak Russian? I do not

 

37

know Romanian.” Another describes, “yes, Romanian-speaking nationalist shop keepers

refuse to recognize Russian when I was speaking to them.”

Though a major part of my research into Moldova’s educational domains focused

on language of instruction, another facet centered in on ideologies learned and reinforced

through school curricula. Following Cahul’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991,

much of its history curriculum was rewritten to reflect the uniqueness of the new

Moldovan nation. Cahul’s nation-building efforts, like the rest of Moldova’s, focused on

raising a generation of young Moldovans who would identify themselves by a shared

common language and shared traditions and state emblems. During the first part of their

schooling, survey respondents remembered learning a Romanian-centric version of

Moldovan history that said Moldova was an extension of Romanian history and culture.

During their high school years, students witnessed the change to a Moldova-centric version

of Moldovan history that reinforced Moldova’s separate language, culture, and history

apart from Romania and Russia.

Part of Moldova’s new educational curriculum involved teaching students to

identify with the new national symbols of Moldova, notably the flag of Moldova. Russian,

Romanian, and Moldovan flags are frequently displayed in shops, state buildings, rear

view mirrors, and parks. Flags are flown with pride and are symbols that Moldovans use

to define their heritage and reflect their national identity. Half way through the survey, I

presented students with pictures of the Russian, Romanian, and Moldovan flags and asked

them to describe the flag and details what it means to them. Student responses reflect

competing loyalties to both Romania and Russia. First, students were shown a picture of

the Moldovan flag. One Romanian-speaking student said, “this flag represents identity,

 

38

peace and motherland for me”. While homeland for some respondents meant Moldova,

others said the flag reminded them of the fact that “we are really Romanian”.

The majority of respondents described the Moldovan flag as the flag of their

homeland, but students also said the Russian and Romanian flag represented their

homeland. When presented with the Russian flag, one Russian speaker expressed that “for

me, it is the flag of my homeland, even though I reside in Moldova. I hope that someday I

will be recognized as a Russian citizen.” Other positive responses stated, “this flag

represents power and the future,” and “the Russian flag connects me with other speakers of

my mother tongue”. Several students who did not claim proficiency in Russian language,

stated that the flag represented “war and lots of pressure,” and that “this is not my nation,

for sure”. Similarly, one student who claimed Russian as their mother tongue described the

Romanian flag as “crap”. Another student stated, “I do not associate this flag with anything

special; it is similar to any other flag of foreign countries”.

Although it is evident that a minority of respondents harbored negative feelings

towards Russia and Romania, the majority of respondents described what they thought the

colors in each flag meant but did not associate it with their personal lives or incorporates it

into their personal narratives. Students noted that during their primary and secondary

education, they remembered both the Romanian and Moldovan flag displayed in Romanian

educational institutions and the Russian and Moldovan flag displayed in Russian

educational institutions. Students said rather than being taught to associate with only the

Moldovan flag, they also learned to see themselves as members of a larger community of

language speakers.

 

39

As the recipients of a mixed history education and having grown up in a time of

transition in Moldova, many students reflected that they did not know who they were and

could not quantify their ethnic identities. When asked about their cultural identities, it was

not uncommon for a student to say “I’m Romanian and Moldovan” or that “I feel Russian,

Moldovan, and Gagauz”. Despite the Moldovan government’s efforts to mold a strong

Moldovan identity in its youth, the students I surveyed in Cahul are still struggling to

define their national identity twenty-three years after independence (see Table 11 below).

TABLE 11: CULTURAL IDENTITIES OF B.P. HASDEU STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

What is your cultural

identity? Russian, Romanian, Moldovan or other?

Russian, Moldovan 3

I identify with more than 3 cultures

4

Moldovan, Romanian 7

Moldovan 5

Gagauz 3

Russian, Polish 1

Russian 3

Ukrainian 2

Bulgarian 1

Azerbaijani 1

Romanian 1

 

40

Examining the table above provides evidence to the fact that Moldovan youth

struggle to situate themselves in the context of the Moldovan nation. Only 16% of

respondents said they culturally identified with Moldova. The majority of respondents

define their cultural identity along linguistic lines. Students who identified themselves as

both Russian and Moldovan listed their Russian identity first, thus exhibiting their loyalty

to a larger community of language speakers rather than a national identity. Both student

responses and collected data suggest that a lack of exposure to speakers of other languages

has further contributed to students’ difficulty in formulating strong national identities.

Respondents’ tendencies to situate their identity in terms of larger linguistic communities

reflects Moldova’s struggle to unite its multiethnic population under one common identity.

Instead students form their identities around the majority language spoken at home, the

language of instruction at school, and the language used to communicate with social

groups and in public.

           

 

41

CONCLUSION  

This paper examined how the personal and educational domains of Cahul

university students have effected their national identity formation. The Language Law of

1989 and the Moldovan Constitution of 1994 made Romanian the official state language

and established that minority language speakers had the right to be educated in their

mother tongue. Analyzing student opinions towards language and national identity in

Moldova, provided insight into students’ experiences in linguistically segregated

institutions. Attending segregated educational institutions from primary school through

collegiate studies explains students’ tendency to define their identities in terms of the

languages they speak. In particular, students whose parents sent them to Russian or

Romanian language institutions attended course with speakers of the same mother tongue

and formed social networks with their classmates based on their mutual shared language.

At home, parents and grandparents who shared the same mother reinforced language of

instruction. It is important to recognize that while linguistic segregation is not the only

factor contributing to national identity formation, it was the only one examined in my

research.

Survey questions were designed to examine how language-segregated institutions

have affected identity formation in young adults aged 18-22 attending B.P. Hasdeu State

University in Cahul, Moldova. In particular, students were asked to share their personal

anecdotes, attitudes, and experiences with language in Moldova. Over half of the

 

42

surveyed students experienced language discrimination. The majority of respondents

expressed an overwhelming willingness to speak a language that their peers would

understand. However, when asked to detail their thoughts about language in Moldova, all

Russian respondents declared that they thought Russian should also be recognized as one

of the official languages of Moldova. In comparison to Romanian speakers in Cahul,

Russian speakers experienced more language discrimination. In particular, Russian

students at the university described not wanting to take classes with professors who

infamously favored Romanian-speaking students.

Survey data supported many of my observations as a teacher and a Russian-

speaker during my time in Moldova. Several times a month shopkeepers would question

why I didn’t know Romanian, the national language of Moldova. On several occasions, I

was refused service at the local restaurant and grocery stores. It wasn’t until I explained

that I was an American that the shopkeepers would let down their guard and speak to me

in Russian.

Amidst a region terse with language politics, the college students I surveyed

conveyed their confusion in defining their national identity. Few were willing to simply

classify themselves as Moldovans and chose instead to draw their cultural identities to

several countries or languages. One student rationalizes, “I think that when children are

younger it is difficult to perceive the difference between languages, now I am older and I

can't say that I'm really Romanian, Moldovan or Russian.”

Language choice is something that students admitted to not thinking about on a

daily basis. In fact, most students replied that the survey was the first opportunity they

 

43

had been given to voice their attitudes about language and identity in Moldova. While I

distributed the survey to both my Russian and Romanian groups, I received the majority

of my responses from Russian speaking students. As the minority language speakers in

Cahul, Russian speakers understandably voiced the most dissatisfaction with the status of

language in Moldova. One student claimed, “it is crazy that many consider Russian an

inferior language in Moldova; it should be equal to Romanian”. Most respondents think

Russian and Romanian should have equal status in the Moldovan Constitution.

Survey data exhibits that both personal and educational domains influence

language use and attitudes in Cahul. Of particular interest is the fact that parents willingly

send their children to pre-schools taught in a language other than a language spoken at

home. However, after kindergarten, parents choose to send their children to educational

institutions with instruction in the family’s native language. In the framework of

Moldova’s educational framework, students attending linguistically segregated

institutions receive little exposure to speakers of other languages. This trend continues in

collegiate studies and while students are willing to speak and socialize with speakers of

other languages, the organizational framework in place provides for few opportunities. It

is evident that neither educational nor personal domains entirely influence the language

use and attitudes of Romanian and Russian students studying at B.P. Hasdeu State

University. Rather both domains contribute to language segregation in educational

institutions and have further complicated national identity formation in Moldova’s first

generation to grow up since gaining its independence.

 

44

APPENDIX I: MAP OF CAHUL (Eremia, 2007, p. 20)

 

45

APPENDIX II: ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONS

1. What are some of your favorite books that you read growing up?

a. What language were they in?

2. Did your parents read to you as a child?

a. What language were the books written? List some of the books.

3. Did your grandparents read to you as a child?

a. What language were the books written? List some of the books.

4. Are you more likely to listen to Russian, Romanian or Moldovan music? List a

few of your favorite bands or singers.

5. What international artists do you listen to?

6. On what channel are you most likely to watch the news?

a. What language is the news broadcast in?

7. When you watch the news, are there subtitles?

1. What language are the subtitles?

8. Would you rather watch a movie dubbed in Russian, Moldovan, or Romanian?

9. Look at each flag below and in the space provided, describe how you relate to

each flag. What does the flag mean to you?

 

46

10. What lyceum (school) did you attend?

a) What was the primary language of instruction?

b) In what language were your textbooks written?

11. What language(s) do you speak?

 

 

47

12. What language(s) do you speak at home?

13. What language(s) do or did your parents speak?

14. What language(s) do or did your grandparents speak?

15. Where is your family from in Moldova? If your family is from another country,

please list which country.

16. What is your cultural identity? Russian, Romanian, Moldovan or other? If you

identify with more than one cultural group, please list all that apply.

17. What is the primary language of your instruction at the university? Russian,

Romanian, or Moldovan?

18. At the university, do you have many friends that speak a language different than

yours? If so, how do you communicate with each other?

19. Outside of class, do most of your friends speak Russian or Romanian? Please

describe.

20. If you are a Romanian speaker, how do you communicate with your Russian-

speaking friends?

21. If you are a Russian speaker, how do you communicate with your Romanian-

speaking friends?

22. Outside of the university, what language do you use in public places (market, doctor's

office, etc.)?

23. Can you remember a time when someone requested you speak another language?

Please describe.

24. What are your attitudes towards language in Moldova? If you wish to convey any

additional information, please use the space provided below:

 

48

APPENDIX III: MOLDOVAN 1994 CONSTITUTION ON LANGUAGE

Article 10 Unity and the right to identity (1) The State foundation is unity of the Republic of Moldova. Moldova is the common and indivisible homeland of all its citizens. (2) The State recognizes and guarantees the right of all citizens to preserve, develop and express their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious. Article 13 Language, the functioning of other languages (1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, work on the Latin script. (2) The State recognizes and protects the right to preserve, develop and Russian language and other languages spoken in the country. (3) The state facilitates the study of international languages. (4) The use of languages in Moldova is determined by organic law. Article 35 Right to education (1) The right to education is provided by general secondary education through secondary and vocational education, by higher education and other forms of education and training. (2) The State shall, by law, shall have the right to choose the language of education and training of people. (3) Studying language shall be ensured in educational institutions at all levels. (4) education is free. (5) All educational institutions, including the state, shall be established and operates under the law. (6) Higher education institutions have the right to autonomy. (7) high school, vocational and higher education is equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (8) The State shall ensure, under the law, freedom of religious education. State education is secular. (9) The priority right to choose the educational background of children lies with the parents.

(CONSTITUŢIA REPUBLICII MOLDOVA, 1994)

 

49

Appendix IV: IRB Form of Approval

2)),&(�2)�+80$1�5(6($5&+�(7+,&6�0HGLFDO�6FKRRO�%XLOGLQJ���0DVRQ�)DUP�5RDG�&%������&KDSHO�+LOO��1&�������������������������:HE�VLWH��RKUH�XQF�HGX)HGHUDOZLGH�$VVXUDQFH��):$�������� �

� � �7R��5HEHFFD�5XFN�&WU�6ODYLF��(XUDV�DQG�(�(XU��

)URP��2IILFH�RI�+XPDQ�5HVHDUFK�(WKLFV

'DWH������������

5(��1RWLFH�RI�,5%�([HPSWLRQ([HPSWLRQ�&DWHJRU\����6XUYH\��LQWHUYLHZ��SXEOLF�REVHUYDWLRQ�6WXG\�����������

6WXG\�7LWOH��+DL��'DYDL��$Q�(WKQRJUDSKLF�6XUYH\�RI�/DQJXDJH�8VH�DQG�,GHQWLW\�LQ�<RXQJ�$GXOWV/LYLQJ�LQ�WKH�6RXWK�RI�0ROGRYD

7KLV�VXEPLVVLRQ�KDV�EHHQ�UHYLHZHG�E\�WKH�2IILFH�RI�+XPDQ�5HVHDUFK�(WKLFV�DQG�ZDV�GHWHUPLQHG�WREH�H[HPSW�IURP�IXUWKHU�UHYLHZ�DFFRUGLQJ�WR�WKH�UHJXODWRU\�FDWHJRU\�FLWHG�DERYH�XQGHU����&)5�������E���

6WXG\�'HVFULSWLRQ��3XUSRVH��7KH�SXUSRVH�RI�P\�UHVHDUFK�LV�WR�H[DPLQH�WKH�HIIHFW�RI�ODQJXDJH�VHJUHJDWLRQ�RQ�LGHQWLW\IRUPDWLRQ�LQ�SRVW�6RYLHW�0ROGRYD��6LQFH�JDLQLQJ�LWV�LQGHSHQGHQFH�IURP�WKH�6RYLHW�8QLRQ�LQ������0ROGRYD�KDV�VWUXJJOHG�WR�IRUP�D�XQLILHG�QDWLRQDO�LGHQWLW\��,QVWHDG�RI�LGHQWLI\LQJ�DV�D�0ROGRYDQQDWLRQ��PDQ\�0ROGRYDQV�LGHQWLI\�ZLWK�WKH�5RPDQLDQ�RU�5XVVLDQ�KHULWDJH��5RPDQLDQ�ZDV�GHFODUHGWKH�QDWLRQDO�ODQJXDJH�RI�0ROGRYD�LQ�������+RZHYHU��VFKRROV�KDYH�EHHQ�VHJUHJDWHG�E\�ODQJXDJH��,QWKH�VRXWK�RI�0ROGRYD��XQLYHUVLW\�FRXUVHV�DUH�WDXJKW�LQ�ERWK�5XVVLDQ�DQG�5RPDQLDQ��7KHUH�LV�PLQLPDOLQWHUDFWLRQ�EHWZHHQ�WKH�5RPDQLDQ�VSHDNLQJ�PDMRULW\�DQG�WKH�5XVVLDQ�VSHDNLQJ�PLQRULW\��,�ZLOO�IRFXVP\�UHVHDUFK�RQ�WKH�UHVXUJHQFH�RI�QDWLRQDOLVP�LQ�XQLYHUVLW\�VWXGHQWV�DJHG�������ZKR�ZHUH�ERUQ�DIWHU0ROGRYD�JDLQHG�LWV�LQGHSHQGHQFH�DQG�ZKR�GR�QRW�KDYH�D�KLVWRULFDO�PHPRU\�RI�OLIH�LQ�0ROGRYDGXULQJ�6RYLHW�UXOH��7KH�TXHVWLRQ�WR�EH�DGGUHVVHG�LV�KRZ�FODVVURRP�VHJUHJDWLRQ�E\�ODQJXDJH�KDVDIIHFWHG�LGHQWLW\�IRUPDWLRQ�LQ�0ROGRYDQ�\RXQJ�DGXOWV��7KH�XQLYHUVLW\�VWXGHQWV�ZLOO�EH�JLYHQ�DQRQOLQH�VXUYH\�LQ�ZKLFK�WKH\�FDQ�FRPSOHWH�DW�WKHLU�FRQYHQLHQFH���

3DUWLFLSDQWV��7KH�SDUWLFLSDQWV�LQ�WKH�VWXG\�ZLOO�LQFOXGH����XQLYHUVLW\�VWXGHQWV�FKRVHQ�IURP�%�3�+DVGHX�8QLYHUVLW\�LQ�&DKXO��0ROGRYD��7KH�FODVV�FRQVLVWV�RI�ERWK�PDOH�DQG�IHPDOH�VWXGHQWV�UDQJLQJLQ�DJH�IURP����WR����\HDUV�ROG��$OO�DUH�(QJOLVK�SURILFLHQW��7KH�VXEMHFWV�RI�WKLV�VWXG\�ZHUHSXUSRVLYHO\�FKRVHQ�EHFDXVH�WKH\�DUH�PHPEHUV�RI�WKH�ILUVW�JHQHUDWLRQ�WR�JURZ�XS�LQ�0ROGRYD�DIWHU�WKHFROODSVH�RI�WKH�6RYLHW�8QLRQ�LQ�������7KH�SDUWLFLSDQWV�ZHUH�VHOHFWHG�EHFDXVH�WKH\�ZHUH�VWXGHQWV�,WDXJKW�GXULQJ�P\�FRPSOHWLRQ�RI�D�)XOEULJKW�(QJOLVK�7HDFKLQJ�$VVLVWDQWVKLS�LQ�0ROGRYD��&KLOGUHQXQGHU�WKH�DJH�RI����ZLOO�QRW�EH�LQFOXGHG���

3URFHGXUHV��PHWKRGV���

3URVSHFWLYH�SDUWLFLSDQWV�ZLOO�UHFHLYH�D�UHFUXLWPHQW�HPDLO�ZKLFK�JLYHV�WKHP�WKH�RSWLRQ�RI�FOLFNLQJ�RQD�OLQN�WR�WDNH�DQ�DQRQ\PRXV�RQOLQH�VXUYH\��,�ZLOO�SURYLGH�VWXGHQWV�ZLWK�D�OLQN�WR�FRPSOHWH�WKH�RQOLQH

SDJH���RI���

 

50

VXUYH\�LQ�(QJOLVK��$IWHU�FOLFNLQJ�WKH�VXUYH\�OLQN��VWXGHQWV�ZLOO�EH�SUHVHQWHG�ZLWK�DQ�RQOLQH�FRQVHQWIRUP��7KH�VXUYH\�ZLOO�WDNH�SDUWLFLSDQWV�EHWZHHQ�������PLQXWHV��EXW�PRVW�OLNHO\����PLQXWHV��WKHYDULDWLRQ�FRPLQJ�IURP�UHDGLQJ�UDWH�DQG�VSHHG�RI�FRPSXWHU�VHUYLFH�DW�LQGLYLGXDO�LQVWLWXWLRQV���7KHVXUYH\�ZLOO�DVN�VWXGHQWV�TXHVWLRQV�IRFXVHG�RQ�ODQJXDJH�DQG�LGHQWLW\�LQ�0ROGRYD��4XHVWLRQV�KDYHEHHQ�FDUHIXOO\�VHOHFWHG�DV�WR�DYRLG�DQ\�SROLWLFDOO\�DQG�FXOWXUDOO\�VHQVLWLYH�PDWHULDO��$OO�SDUWLFLSDQWVFDQ�GHFLGH�ZKHUH�DQG�ZKHQ�WKH\�WDNH�WKH�VXUYH\��3DUWLFLSDQWV�ZLOO�DOVR�KDYH�WKH�RSWLRQ�WR�GLVFRQWLQXHWKH�VXUYH\�DW�DQ\�WLPH��6XUYH\�UHVSRQVHV�ZLOO�EH�FROOHFWHG�XVLQJ�WKH�6XUYH\0RQNH\�SODWIRUP��,�DORQJ�ZLWK�P\�WKHVLV�DGYLVRU��ZLOO�EH�WKH�RQO\�LQGLYLGXDOV�DEOH�WR�DFFHVV�SDUWLFLSDQW�UHVSRQVHV��$W�QRSRLQW�LQ�WKH�VXUYH\�SURFHVV�ZLOO�WKH�LGHQWLW\�RI�VXUYH\�SDUWLFLSDQWV�EH�UHYHDOHG��$IWHU�UHFHLYLQJ�DOO�RIWKH�FRPSOHWHG�RQOLQH�VXUYH\V��,�ZLOO�DQDO\]H�WKHLU�GDWD�DQG�XVH�LW�WRZDUGV�WKH�FRPSOHWLRQ�RI�P\�0$WKHVLV���

,QYHVWLJDWRU¶V�5HVSRQVLELOLWLHV��,I�\RXU�VWXG\�SURWRFRO�FKDQJHV�LQ�VXFK�D�ZD\�WKDW�H[HPSW�VWDWXV�ZRXOG�QR�ORQJHU�DSSO\��\RX�VKRXOGFRQWDFW�WKH�DERYH�,5%�EHIRUH�PDNLQJ�WKH�FKDQJHV��7KH�,5%�ZLOO�PDLQWDLQ�UHFRUGV�IRU�WKLV�VWXG\�IRU��\HDUV��DW�ZKLFK�WLPH�\RX�ZLOO�EH�FRQWDFWHG�DERXW�WKH�VWDWXV�RI�WKH�VWXG\��

5HVHDUFKHUV�DUH�UHPLQGHG�WKDW�DGGLWLRQDO�DSSURYDOV�PD\�EH�QHHGHG�IURP�UHOHYDQW��JDWHNHHSHUV��WRDFFHVV�VXEMHFWV��H�J���SULQFLSDOV��IDFLOLW\�GLUHFWRUV��KHDOWKFDUH�V\VWHP���

&&���5REHUW�-HQNLQV��3ROLWLFDO�6FLHQFH

SDJH���RI���

 

51

REFERENCES

Anderson, B. R. O. (2006). Imagined communities  : reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London; New York: Verso.

Pavlenko, Aneta. (2009). Language Conflict in Post-Soviet Linguistic Landscapes. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 17(1-2), 247–274. doi:10.1353/jsl.0.0025

Anonymous. (1995). Belarus and Moldova  : country studies. United States.

Babbie, E. R. (2013). The Practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Batalden, S. K. (1997). The newly independent states of Eurasia: handbook of former Soviet republics (2nd ed.). Phoenix, Ariz: Oryx.

Bear, Valentina. (2012, July 2). University of Cahul and the need for specialists in the south of Moldova. Radio Liberty. Retrieved from http://www.europalibera.org/content/article/24476750.html

Biroul Naţional de Statistică al Republicii Moldova. (2012). Populaţia Republicii Moldova pe vîrste şisexe,, în profilteritorial la 1 ianuarie 2012. Retrieved from http://www.statistica.md/public/files/publicatii_electronice/populatia/Populatia_RM_2012.pdf

Block, D. (2008). Multilingual identities in a global city: London stories. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P., & Thompson, J. B. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brubaker, R. (1994). Nationhood and the National Question in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet Eurasia: An Institutionalist Account. Theory and Society, 23(1), pp. 47–78. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/657812

 

52

Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Cahul State University Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu. (2013). State University of Cahul. Retrieved from http://www.usch.md/index.php/en/informatii-generale

Calhoun, C. (1993). Nationalism and Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19(1), 211–239. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.19.080193.001235

Chinn, J., & Roper, S. D. (1995). Ethnic mobilization and reactive nationalism: The case of Moldova. Nationalities Papers, 23(2), 291–325. doi:10.1080/00905999508408378

CIA. (2013). CIA World Factbook Moldova. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html

Ciscel, M. H. (2007). The language of the Moldovans  : Romania, Russia, and identity in an ex-Soviet republic. Lanham: Lexington Books.

CONSTITUŢIA REPUBLICII MOLDOVA. , Pub. L. No. Articolul 13 Limba de stat, funcţionarea celorlalte limbi; Articolul 35 Dreptul la învăţătură, Articolul 10 Unitatea poporului şi dreptul la identitate (1994).

Council of Europe., C. for C. C. (2009). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge [etc.]; Strasbourg: Cambridge University Press  ; Council of Europe.

Darden, K., & Grzymala-Busse, A. (2006). The Great Divide: Literacy, Nationalism, and the Communist Collapse. World Politics, 59(1), 83–115. doi:10.2307/40060156

Darvill, T. (2012). nation‐state. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/10.1093/acref/9780199534043.001.0001/acref-9780199534043-e-2704

 

 

53

Dave, B. (2004). Entitlement through numbers: nationality and language categories in the first postâ€�Soviet census of Kazakhstan. Nations and Nationalism, 10(4), 439–459. doi:10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00176.x

Doina Costin. (2011). MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2012. MOLDOVA - IREX. Retrieved from http://www.irex.org/system/files/u105/EE_MSI_2012_Moldova.pdf

Eremia, A. (2007). Cahulul în timp și spațiu: meleaguri străbune: istorie, geografie, toponimie. Chișinău: Academia de Științe a Moldovei, Institutul de Filologie.

Fishman, J. A. (2001). Handbook of language & ethnic identity. Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University Press.

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Gellner, E. (2006). Nations and nationalism (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Habermas, J. (1994). The past as future: Vergangenheit als Zukunft. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Herder, J. G. (1969). J. G. Herder on social and political culture. London: Cambridge U.P.

Herder, J. G. (2002). Philosophical writings. Cambridge, UK  ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality (2nd ed.). Cambridge [England]  ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

King, C. (2000). The Moldovans  : Romania, Russia, and the politics of culture. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. Retrieved from http://search.lib.unc.edu?R=UNCb3541114

 

54

Lenin, V. I., & Lorimer, D. (2002). Marxism & nationalism. Chippendale, N.S.W.: Resistance Books.

Martin-Jones, M., Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2012). The Routledge handbook of multilingualism. London; New York: Routledge.

National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova. (2011). Resident population, as of January1 by Districts and cities and Years. statistica.md. Retrieved from http://statbank.statistica.md/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp

National integration and violent conflict in post-Soviet societies  : the cases of Estonia and Moldova. (2002). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Retrieved from http://search.lib.unc.edu?R=UNCb4229972

Nebunu, A., Arsene, R., & Maftei, M. (2011). Pilot Project on the Rehabilitation of Cultural Heritage in Historic Towns Cahul, MOLDOVA. Council of Europe.

Quigley, John. (1994). TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL NORMS ON LINGUISTIC RIGHTS: THE RUSSIAN-ROMANIAN CONTROVERSY IN MOLDOVA. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 10, 69–695.

Reisner, E. H. (1922). Nationalism and education since 1789; a social and political history of modern education. New York: The Macmillan Company. Retrieved from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006495957

Safran, W. (2008). Language, ethnicity and religion: a complex and persistent linkage. Nations and Nationalism, 14(1), 171–190. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2008.00323.x

Schmidtke, O., & Chira-Pascanut, C. (2011). Contested neighbourhood: Toward the “Europeanization” of Moldova? Comparative European Politics, 9(4-5), 467–485. doi:10.1057/cep.2011.12

Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

 

55

Studies in Moldovan  : the history, culture, language and contemporary politics of the people of Moldova. (1996). Boulder; New York: East European Monographs; Distributed by Columbia University Press.

 

Suny, R. G. (2001). Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, 73(4), 862–896. doi:10.1086/340148

United Nations. (2010). Eighth and ninth periodic reports of States parties due in 2010 Moldova (No. CERD/C/MDA/8-9) (p. 35).

Weber, M., Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1991). From Max Weber: essays in sociology. London: Routledge.

Worden, E. A. (2011). The “Mock Reform” of History Education in Moldova: Actors versus the Script. Comparative Education Review, 55(2), 231–251.

Wright, S. (2000). Community and communication: the role of language in nation state building and European integration. Clevedon Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning  : from nationalism to globalisation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.